Recent and past allegations of police brutality in Mauritius are bound to create a culture of fear in the public and have delivered a severe blow to public confidence in the police. Unless urgent action is taken, the situation looks set to deteriorate. More importantly, these allegations are causing great damage to the reputation and image of our country on the international scene.

Our economy, which is highly dependent on the tourism industry, cannot afford such bad publicity when it is clear that our reputation as a safe destination is the main reason that has spared us from the sharp downfall of tourist arrivals suffered by many countries in the aftermath of the September 11th 2001 tragedy.

The death in police custody of singer Joseph Reginald Topize, also called Kaya, brought into sharp focus an ongoing problem of police brutality allegations in Mauritius. Kaya was arrested for smoking cannabis and he died in police custody three days later. His death provoked several days of rioting during which another singer Berger Agathe was killed after being hit by a rubber bullet during a demonstration. Enquiries into the death of Kaya did not reveal any wrongdoing on the part of the police.

Yet in the public?s eyes and minds, the conclusion was forgone - Kaya died from injuries sustained after being ?brutalized? by the police whilst he was in custody. Police brutality has since become an issue drawing the attention of the press, the public, non-governmental organisations and the government.

Allegations of police brutality against Cehl Meah, leader of the Hizbullah party, and more recently against press reporter, Jacques Achille, have confirmed existing fears that such practice by the police has not stopped in Mauritius despite several attempts to tackle the problem both by the police and by the government.

Whether all the accusations made in recent months can be ultimately substantiated or not, there is an urgent need for a firm commitment from the authorities to independently and impartially investigate all accusations of torture or ill-treatment.

The purpose of the police is to uphold the law fairly and firmly: to prevent crime; to pursue and bring to justice those who break the law; to protect, help and reassure the community and to be seen to do all this with integrity and sound judgement.

The police must be compassionate, courteous and patient, acting without fear or favour or prejudice to the rights of others. They need to be professional, calm and restrained in the face of violence and apply only that force which is necessary to accomplish their lawful duty. The police must strive to reduce public fears and, as far as possible, to reflect their priorities in the actions they take. They must respond to well-founded criticism with a willingness to change. At a time when demand continues to rise and public expectations of the police remain high, the need to address this issue of police brutality is urgent and expected.

Policing is a partnership. It works well when the public has confidence in its partner. Without a high level of public confidence, this partnership is unlikely to work.

Need to restore public confidence

There is a wide tendency in Mauritius to believe that the police are not ethical and professional in their dealings with the general public. Police brutality seems to have become part and parcel of the Mauritian culture.Public confidence in the police force has drastically fallen and despite endeavours by the government to raise policing standards, the reality depicts a very negative picture of the attitude the public retains of the way the police treat detainees in custody.

There can be no trade-off between tackling crime and offenders and the protection of human rights. Admittedly, the police are constantly under pressure to deal harshly with rising levels of crime and the public does not always appreciate the extent and range of demands on the police.

Nevertheless that must not lower their duty to respect the rights of the individual. Law breaking by the police does not take account of victims? rights. It is one thing to achieve justice and it is another thing to achieve it through injustice.

The need to take urgent action to address human rights violations by the police and to encourage further the transformation of police services in a manner consistent with human rights standards and standards of professional conduct is the only solution to dissipate growing public concern.

To date, no practical solutions have been suggested to render the police service more effective and accountable to the public. In order to break this cycle of impunity and to encourage best practice, there must be an effective mechanism for the independent investigation of police abuses.

One practical solution that could potentially work in Mauritius is the setting up of a monitoring scheme based on the English model of Independent Custody Visiting (ICV). In England, the idea of such a scheme was first put forward in Lord Scarman?s Report on the Brixton and Toxteth Disor-ders in 1981. Lord Scarman recommended that provision be made for ?random checks? by persons other than police officers on the interview and detention of suspects at police stations. Lord Scarman?s report was published in the same year as the Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure, which, amongst other matters, dealt with the question of police powers to detain and interview suspects.

This in turn led to the introduction of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, commonly known as PACE, which contains provisions covering safeguards for detainees within a new detention scheme; a new structure for police complaints and discipline; and a duty for police authorities to consult local communities.

In 1984, pilot schemes established accordingly pro-ved a success and the custody-visiting scheme (then known as lay visiting scheme) was introduced nationwide in England. Today section 51 of the Police Reform Act 2002 requires police authorities to have an Independent Custody Visitors Scheme.

The purpose of the visiting arrangements is to enable members of the local community to observe, comment and report on the conditions of detention at police stations. These arrangements also provide an independent check on the way police officers carry out their duties with regard to detained persons and therefore increase public confidence in these matters.

The ICV scheme

All persons in police custody may be visited, including remand and convicted detainees, both adults and juveniles. To achieve its objectives, an Independent Cutody Visiting Working Party meets regularly to monitor various aspects of the scheme. Independent custody visits have not only been positively welcomed by the public but they have also proved to be of considerable assistance to police officers who see in them a way of drawing attention to and improving their working conditions.

The police can appeal to custody visitors in relation to detainees? welfare or about a lack of resources for the good running of police stations. Custody visitors then report the matter to the police authority, who does the needful.

The scheme also provides a way for the strict application of the rules intended to promote a high standard of policing in response to public demand. Despite a few criticisms of the independent custody visiting scheme by a minority of police officers, the police force as a whole has welcomed the idea, which has proved its significance in the criminal justice system.

Independent custody visitors are members of the local community who visit police stations unannounced to check on the welfare of people in police custody. They come from all walks of life. They must be over 18 years old and have no direct involvement in the criminal justice system. ICVs are unpaid volunteers.

Those wishing to become ICVs need to apply to their local police authorities and a rigorous selection process is carried out at the interview stage for those who are short-listed. Successful applicants follow a training-course made up of theoretical and practical exercises covering all aspects of custody visiting and complemented by a set of guidelines for that purpose.

Newly appointed ICVs complete a probationary period and then appointments are made for a set period, usually 3 years renewable. As unpaid volunteers, they act as independent monitors, checking on the welfare of detainees in police cells and ensuring that their rights and entitlements are being met. They also observe and report on cell conditions, detention rooms, charge rooms, medical rooms, washing facilities, kitchen areas, exercise yards and the operation of CCTV systems (in England). They do not take sides but look, listen and report on what they find in the custody unit.

Once appointed, the ICVs visit police stations in pairs at least once a week. The actual timing of visits is entirely a matter for the ICVs, but should be random and unannounced. ICVs must maintain their independence and impartiality.

On arrival at the police station, they are escorted to the custody area where detainees are identified by their custody numbers. Strict rules of confidentiality apply. Only in exceptional circumstances are ICVs denied access to the custody area. Usually this would be for safety reasons.

A report is completed after each visit. It provides an insight into the running of the custody area at the time of the visit. Copies of the reports are provided for the police, police authorities, ICVs and the Home Office (in England).

These reports provide a vital source of information on the environmental and welfare conditions of detainees. The information is analysed and the areas for action are highlighted. ICVs must treat as confidential the details of what they see and hear during their visits. They are expected to report in general terms to their police authority (in England).

Implementation in Mauritius

The ICV Scheme can be adapted to the Mauritian context. Despite the lack of a police authority in Mauritius (something it is perhaps high time to introduce), the setting up and operation of the scheme is not affected. The ICV scheme can be overviewed and monitored by a body appointed by Government and report directly to the prime minister?s office.

The said body will consist of people having a sound grasp and knowledge of the criminal justice system. They could potentially be members of the Mauritian Bar and judges (in office or retired). The responsibility for the overall running of the scheme would be delegated to two scheme administrators.

There would be recruitment criteria adapted to the Mauritian context. Selection and appointment of custody visitors would be based on a clear job description as well as personal specifications setting out the qualities ICVs require to carry out their role effectively. The recruitment process would be open, non-discriminatory and well publicised.

Selection would be made on the basis of a standard application form. All those who are short-listed after examination of their applications would be called for an interview where they would undergo a strict and rigorous vetting. Appointment would be carried out solely on merit. The newly appointed ICVs would undergo training, whi-ch would enable them to face practical problems they might encounter whilst undertaking visits. A code of practice would also be introduced to promote a good working relationship between custody visitors and police officers.

The Government should act now rather than wait for another allegation of police brutality and/or, if unfortunate enough, the death in custody of another detainee. Police professionalism un-doubtedly exists in Mauritius. Sadly, it seems to be in minority in the police force.

The introduction of a system akin to that of the ICV scheme in England has become a necessity in Mauritius. It will provide a check and balance on the police in the discharge of their duties in police stations. This in turn will boost public confidence in the police and promote a partnership, so crucial for our country at a time when justice not only needs to be done but needs imperatively to be seen to be done.

Yahia Nazroo